重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(44)】台省耕地租約辦法就止約登記應備文件之規定合憲。
2014.4.17 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位：司法院
解釋字號：釋字第561號
解釋日期：民國92年7月4日
解釋爭點：台省耕地租約辦法就止約登記應備文件之規定違憲？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 45 卷 8 期 28-36 頁
司法周刊 第 1141 期 1 版
司法院大法官解釋（十六）（99年5月版）第 121-134 頁
考選周刊 第 923 期 2 版
總統府公報 第 6537 號 64-80 頁
法令月刊 第 54 卷 8 期 92 頁
法務部公報 第 311 期 136-143 頁
相關法條：
民法 第 440 條 ( 91.06.26 )
耕地三七五減租條例 第 1、17、6 條 ( 91.05.15 )
臺灣省耕地租約登記辦法（新 89.04.26 訂定） 第 6 條 ( 89.04.26 )
解釋文：
台灣省耕地租約登記辦法係基於耕地三七五減租條例第六條第二項授權而訂定，該辦法第六條第二項第三款規定，出租人依上開條例第十七條第一項第三款申請租約終止登記者，除應填具申請書外，並應檢具租約、欠租催告書、逾期不繳地租終止租約通知書及送達證明文件，或耕地租佃委員會調解、調處成立證明文件，或法院確定判決書。此係主管機關基於法律授權發布命令就申請人 應檢具證明文件等細節性、技術性次要事項為必要補充規定，尚非憲法所不許。耕地三七五減租條例第一條規定：﹁耕地之租佃，依本條例之規定；本條例未規定 者，依土地法及其他法律之規定。﹂民法第四百四十條第一項關於承租人租金支付有遲延者，出租人得定相當期限，催告承租人支付租金之規定，於出租人依本條例第十七條第一項第三款終止契約時，亦適用之。是前開耕地租約登記辦法第六條第二項第三款關於應檢具欠租催告書等規定，並未逾越法律授權，亦未增加法律所無之限制，與憲法尚無牴觸。
理由書：
本件聲請人據以聲請解釋之中華民國七十二年修正耕地三七五減租條例第六條規定：﹁本條例施行後，耕地租約應一律以書面為之；租約之訂立、變更、終止或換訂， 應由出租人會同承租人申請登記。﹂「前項登記辦法，由省（市）政府擬定，報請行政院核定之。」當時之台灣省耕地租約登記辦法係依據此項授權而訂定。該辦法 第六條第二項第三款規定，出租人依上開條例第十七條第一項第三款申請租約終止登記者，除應填具申請書外，並應檢具租約、欠租催告書、逾期不繳地租終止租約 通知書及送達證明文件，或耕地租佃委員會調解、調處成立證明文件，或法院確定判決書。此乃主管機關基於法律授權發布命令就申請人應檢具證明文件等細節性、 技術性次要事項為必要補充規定，尚非憲法所不許（本院釋字第三六七號、第四四三號及第五四七號解釋等參照）。
耕地三七五減租條例第一條：﹁耕地之租佃，依本條例之規定；本條例未規定者，依土地法及其他法律之規定。﹂所稱﹁其他法律﹂包括民法租賃之規定在內。民法第 四百四十條第一項：﹁承租人租金支付有遲延者，出租人得定相當期限，催告承租人支付租金，如承租人於其期限內不為支付，出租人得終止契約﹂，即出租人須對承租人定期催告支付遲延之租金，始有終止租約之權利，其立法目的旨在保護承租人，於出租人依耕地三七五減租條例第十七條第一項第三款終止契約時，亦應適用之，最高法院本此意旨，著有四十五年台上字第二○五號判例。是前開耕地租約登記辦法第六條第二項第三款，符合本條例第一條、第十七條、民法第四百四十條等規定意旨，並未增加法律所無之限制，與憲法尚無牴觸。
至於本件聲請人認最高行政法院八十九年度判字第二七五四號判決所適用之前開耕地租約登記辦法第二條、第四條、第五條有違憲疑義部分，查係爭執法院認事用法之當否，並未具體指摘該確定終局判決所適用之法令究有何牴觸憲法之處，核與司法院大法官審理案件法第五條第一項第二款規定不合，依同條第三項規定，應不受理，併此敘明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 561
Date：2003.7.4
Issue：Does the requirement of notice of collection of rent in default for registration of termination of lease contradict the Constitution?
Holding：
The Measures for the Registration of Lease of Farm Land are formulated pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Act Governing Reduction of Farm Rent to 37.5 Percent. Article 6, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 3, of said Measures provides that a lessor who, per Article 17, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3, of said Act, applies to register the termination of lease, shall complete an application form and submit the lease, notice of rent in default, notice of termination of lease due to rent in default, and verification of delivery, or evidence of settlement through mediation or conciliation by the commission for lease of farm lands, or a final court judgment. The foregoing is a supplemental provision issued by the regulatory authority pursuant to authorizations granted by the law regarding details and minor technical issues concerning documents that the applicant should prepare, and is not prohibited under the Constitution. Article 1 of said Act provides: “Lease of farm land shall conform to this Act. Matters not provided for in this Act shall be governed by the Land Act and other laws”. The provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 440 of the Civil Code, which provides that in case of default in respect of payment of rent, the lessor may fix a reasonable period and notify the lessee to make payment, should also apply in the case where the lessor terminates the lease per Article 17, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3, of said Act. The above provision, requiring the notice of collection of rent in default and so forth, Article 6, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 3, of said Act, neither exceeds the scope of authorization of the law nor imposes additional restriction that does not exist under the law, and does not contradict the Constitution.
Reasoning：
The petitioner in this case petitioned for interpretation of Article 6 of the Act Governing Reduction of Farm Rent to 37.5 Percent as amended in 1983 which provides that: “After this Act takes effect, the lease of farm land shall be made in writing. The lessor together with the lessee shall apply to register the execution, amendment, termination or renewal of the lease.” “The Measures for Registration referred to in the preceding Paragraph shall be prescribed by the provincial (city) government to be submitted to the Executive Yuan for approval.” The Measures for the Registration of Lease of Farm Land effective at the time were prescribed pursuant to the aforesaid authorization. Article 6, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 3, of said Measures provides that a lessor who, per Article 17, Paragraph1, Subparagraph 3, of said Act, applies to register the termination of lease, shall complete an application form and submit the lease, notice of rent in default, notice of termination of lease due to rent in default, and verification of delivery, or evidence of settlement through mediation or conciliation by the commission for lease of farm lands, or a final court judgment. The foregoing is a supplemental provision issued by the regulatory authority pursuant to authorizations granted by the law regarding details and minor technical issues concerning documents that the applicant should prepare, and is not prohibited under the Constitution. (See Judicial Yuan Interpretations Nos. 367, 443 and 547)
Article 1 of the Act Governing Reduction of Farm Rent to 37.5 Percent provides: “Lease of farm land shall conform to this Act. Matters not provided for in this Act shall be governed by the Land Act and other laws”. The “other laws” in the foregoing include the provisions of the Civil Code regarding Lease. Paragraph 1 of Article 440 of the Civil Code provides that in case of default in respect of payment of rent, the lessor may fix a reasonable period and notify the lessee to make payment, and if the lessee does not pay within such period, the lessor may terminate the lease. That is, the lessor will not have the right to terminate the lease until the lessor fixes a reasonable period and notifies the lessee to make payment. The legislative purpose of the foregoing is to protect the lessee, and the aforesaid provision should also apply in the case where the lessor terminates the lease per Article 17, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3, of the Act Governing Reduction of Farm Rent to 37.5 Percent. The Supreme Court, in accordance with the aforesaid legislative purpose, has rendered the precedent judgment Ref. No. (45)-Tai-Shang-205. Accordingly, Article 6, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 3, of said Measures conforms to the purpose of Articles 1 and 17 of said Act and Article 440 of the Civil Code, does not prescribe additional restriction that does exist under the law, and does not contradict the Constitution.
The Petitioner questioned whether the Supreme Administrative Court Judgment Ref. No. (89)-Judgment-2754 applying Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the aforesaid Measures contradicted the Constitution. Investigation indicates that the foregoing disputed whether the court made the right decision and applied the appropriate laws, but did not make any specific allegation on where and how, if at all, the ordinances applied in the final court judgment contradicted the Constitution. This contravenes Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act. Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of said Article, the petition should be dismissed. This is hereby also clarified.
' Translated by Dr. C.Y. Huang of Tsar & Tsai Law Firm.
解釋字號：釋字第561號
解釋日期：民國92年7月4日
解釋爭點：台省耕地租約辦法就止約登記應備文件之規定違憲？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 45 卷 8 期 28-36 頁
司法周刊 第 1141 期 1 版
司法院大法官解釋（十六）（99年5月版）第 121-134 頁
考選周刊 第 923 期 2 版
總統府公報 第 6537 號 64-80 頁
法令月刊 第 54 卷 8 期 92 頁
法務部公報 第 311 期 136-143 頁
相關法條：
民法 第 440 條 ( 91.06.26 )
耕地三七五減租條例 第 1、17、6 條 ( 91.05.15 )
臺灣省耕地租約登記辦法（新 89.04.26 訂定） 第 6 條 ( 89.04.26 )
解釋文：
台灣省耕地租約登記辦法係基於耕地三七五減租條例第六條第二項授權而訂定，該辦法第六條第二項第三款規定，出租人依上開條例第十七條第一項第三款申請租約終止登記者，除應填具申請書外，並應檢具租約、欠租催告書、逾期不繳地租終止租約通知書及送達證明文件，或耕地租佃委員會調解、調處成立證明文件，或法院確定判決書。此係主管機關基於法律授權發布命令就申請人 應檢具證明文件等細節性、技術性次要事項為必要補充規定，尚非憲法所不許。耕地三七五減租條例第一條規定：﹁耕地之租佃，依本條例之規定；本條例未規定 者，依土地法及其他法律之規定。﹂民法第四百四十條第一項關於承租人租金支付有遲延者，出租人得定相當期限，催告承租人支付租金之規定，於出租人依本條例第十七條第一項第三款終止契約時，亦適用之。是前開耕地租約登記辦法第六條第二項第三款關於應檢具欠租催告書等規定，並未逾越法律授權，亦未增加法律所無之限制，與憲法尚無牴觸。
理由書：
本件聲請人據以聲請解釋之中華民國七十二年修正耕地三七五減租條例第六條規定：﹁本條例施行後，耕地租約應一律以書面為之；租約之訂立、變更、終止或換訂， 應由出租人會同承租人申請登記。﹂「前項登記辦法，由省（市）政府擬定，報請行政院核定之。」當時之台灣省耕地租約登記辦法係依據此項授權而訂定。該辦法 第六條第二項第三款規定，出租人依上開條例第十七條第一項第三款申請租約終止登記者，除應填具申請書外，並應檢具租約、欠租催告書、逾期不繳地租終止租約 通知書及送達證明文件，或耕地租佃委員會調解、調處成立證明文件，或法院確定判決書。此乃主管機關基於法律授權發布命令就申請人應檢具證明文件等細節性、 技術性次要事項為必要補充規定，尚非憲法所不許（本院釋字第三六七號、第四四三號及第五四七號解釋等參照）。
耕地三七五減租條例第一條：﹁耕地之租佃，依本條例之規定；本條例未規定者，依土地法及其他法律之規定。﹂所稱﹁其他法律﹂包括民法租賃之規定在內。民法第 四百四十條第一項：﹁承租人租金支付有遲延者，出租人得定相當期限，催告承租人支付租金，如承租人於其期限內不為支付，出租人得終止契約﹂，即出租人須對承租人定期催告支付遲延之租金，始有終止租約之權利，其立法目的旨在保護承租人，於出租人依耕地三七五減租條例第十七條第一項第三款終止契約時，亦應適用之，最高法院本此意旨，著有四十五年台上字第二○五號判例。是前開耕地租約登記辦法第六條第二項第三款，符合本條例第一條、第十七條、民法第四百四十條等規定意旨，並未增加法律所無之限制，與憲法尚無牴觸。
至於本件聲請人認最高行政法院八十九年度判字第二七五四號判決所適用之前開耕地租約登記辦法第二條、第四條、第五條有違憲疑義部分，查係爭執法院認事用法之當否，並未具體指摘該確定終局判決所適用之法令究有何牴觸憲法之處，核與司法院大法官審理案件法第五條第一項第二款規定不合，依同條第三項規定，應不受理，併此敘明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 561
Date：2003.7.4
Issue：Does the requirement of notice of collection of rent in default for registration of termination of lease contradict the Constitution?
Holding：
The Measures for the Registration of Lease of Farm Land are formulated pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Act Governing Reduction of Farm Rent to 37.5 Percent. Article 6, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 3, of said Measures provides that a lessor who, per Article 17, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3, of said Act, applies to register the termination of lease, shall complete an application form and submit the lease, notice of rent in default, notice of termination of lease due to rent in default, and verification of delivery, or evidence of settlement through mediation or conciliation by the commission for lease of farm lands, or a final court judgment. The foregoing is a supplemental provision issued by the regulatory authority pursuant to authorizations granted by the law regarding details and minor technical issues concerning documents that the applicant should prepare, and is not prohibited under the Constitution. Article 1 of said Act provides: “Lease of farm land shall conform to this Act. Matters not provided for in this Act shall be governed by the Land Act and other laws”. The provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 440 of the Civil Code, which provides that in case of default in respect of payment of rent, the lessor may fix a reasonable period and notify the lessee to make payment, should also apply in the case where the lessor terminates the lease per Article 17, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3, of said Act. The above provision, requiring the notice of collection of rent in default and so forth, Article 6, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 3, of said Act, neither exceeds the scope of authorization of the law nor imposes additional restriction that does not exist under the law, and does not contradict the Constitution.
Reasoning：
The petitioner in this case petitioned for interpretation of Article 6 of the Act Governing Reduction of Farm Rent to 37.5 Percent as amended in 1983 which provides that: “After this Act takes effect, the lease of farm land shall be made in writing. The lessor together with the lessee shall apply to register the execution, amendment, termination or renewal of the lease.” “The Measures for Registration referred to in the preceding Paragraph shall be prescribed by the provincial (city) government to be submitted to the Executive Yuan for approval.” The Measures for the Registration of Lease of Farm Land effective at the time were prescribed pursuant to the aforesaid authorization. Article 6, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 3, of said Measures provides that a lessor who, per Article 17, Paragraph1, Subparagraph 3, of said Act, applies to register the termination of lease, shall complete an application form and submit the lease, notice of rent in default, notice of termination of lease due to rent in default, and verification of delivery, or evidence of settlement through mediation or conciliation by the commission for lease of farm lands, or a final court judgment. The foregoing is a supplemental provision issued by the regulatory authority pursuant to authorizations granted by the law regarding details and minor technical issues concerning documents that the applicant should prepare, and is not prohibited under the Constitution. (See Judicial Yuan Interpretations Nos. 367, 443 and 547)
Article 1 of the Act Governing Reduction of Farm Rent to 37.5 Percent provides: “Lease of farm land shall conform to this Act. Matters not provided for in this Act shall be governed by the Land Act and other laws”. The “other laws” in the foregoing include the provisions of the Civil Code regarding Lease. Paragraph 1 of Article 440 of the Civil Code provides that in case of default in respect of payment of rent, the lessor may fix a reasonable period and notify the lessee to make payment, and if the lessee does not pay within such period, the lessor may terminate the lease. That is, the lessor will not have the right to terminate the lease until the lessor fixes a reasonable period and notifies the lessee to make payment. The legislative purpose of the foregoing is to protect the lessee, and the aforesaid provision should also apply in the case where the lessor terminates the lease per Article 17, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3, of the Act Governing Reduction of Farm Rent to 37.5 Percent. The Supreme Court, in accordance with the aforesaid legislative purpose, has rendered the precedent judgment Ref. No. (45)-Tai-Shang-205. Accordingly, Article 6, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 3, of said Measures conforms to the purpose of Articles 1 and 17 of said Act and Article 440 of the Civil Code, does not prescribe additional restriction that does exist under the law, and does not contradict the Constitution.
The Petitioner questioned whether the Supreme Administrative Court Judgment Ref. No. (89)-Judgment-2754 applying Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the aforesaid Measures contradicted the Constitution. Investigation indicates that the foregoing disputed whether the court made the right decision and applied the appropriate laws, but did not make any specific allegation on where and how, if at all, the ordinances applied in the final court judgment contradicted the Constitution. This contravenes Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, of the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act. Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of said Article, the petition should be dismissed. This is hereby also clarified.
' Translated by Dr. C.Y. Huang of Tsar & Tsai Law Firm.
今日瀏覽人數：14585 總瀏覽人數：9704820
|
帝謙高雄法律事務所 | 關於高雄律師 | 高雄法律顧問 | 高雄律師服務項目 | 不動產律師 | 高雄律師專欄 | 高雄律師法律諮詢 | 高雄律師最新消息 | 聯絡高雄律師 |
|
電話：(07)558-9090 傳真：(07)558-9010 地址：813 高雄市左營區明華一路350號11樓之2  Copyright © 2013-2015 Deep-Change Law Firm, All Rights Reserved 網頁設計:uuTaiwan |
友情連結 |
帝謙法律事務所是國內專業的律師事務所，我們提供專業的法律諮詢、民事訴訟、刑事訴訟、行政訴訟訴願、保險理賠、撰寫存證信函、律師信函、不動產法律、遺產繼承規劃、常年法律顧問、契約撰擬…及其他法律專案，高雄律師團隊經驗豐富、辦案認真，積極處理並以同理心處理每個客戶所委託的案件。